aemoreira1981 wrote:

The UK would need a deal with the USA first. But with the way the USA is now, I don't see any deal getting past Congress until at least 2023 (I expect that Congress will be about the same as it is now for 2021-2).

No FTA USA
No FTA EU
No FTA China

I heard that WTO is great!

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The UK would need a deal with the USA first. But with the way the USA is now, I don't see any deal getting past Congress until at least 2023 (I expect that Congress will be about the same as it is now for 2021-2).

Indeed, the whole strategy of the UK seems to have been to first just sign the Political Declaration with the EU, allowing for a quick BRINO and remain in the SM/CU for the time being, without much intend to honour the PD:
then to QUICKY negotiate and firm up a 'fantasic' FTA with the USA, probably involving getting closer on US standards in many domains;
then turn back to the EU and explain it is now impossible to live up to the PD in full because of other very important FTAs it has meanwhile signed up as a sovereign nation, but stress the importance of the EU-UK trade and get a FTA without the level playing field nor regulartory alligment conditions of the PD.

Sadly, the benefits of even the most generous FTA with the US proved to be underwhelming, so the US dragged its feet from the start, then came COVID and now the public uproar on the American streets make that the US government simply has no time left for the UK so a FTA by year end is off the table while the PD still stands with the self-set deadline of June nearing and the risk is that at the end there won't be a FTA with the EU, nor will there be one with the US (and certainly not the fantasic one which was said to replace the SM)

What looked like a fantastic strategy suddenly looks utter shambles: how could it possibly go so wrong after BoJo's landslide election victory? "Events dear boy, events".

Interesting piece by the (very pro-Brexit) chairman of Brexit Watch about the Irish Protocol in the (very pro-Brexit) Telegraph:

“At the House of Lords' European Union Select Committee meeting last week, Lord Cavendish asked Michael Gove if the EU’s obligation to use best endeavours to give effect to the terms of the Political Declaration (a heads of terms agreement covering the future arrangements) could be used to negotiate away the Protocol. Mr Gove replied in one word: “Absolutely”.

He was absolutely wrong. What he should have told Lord Cavendish is the Protocol is already legally binding. It forms an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement, which came into force on 31 January 2020. There is no way to use any contractual pressure to make the EU give way on it. The Protocol exists and is enforceable.”

The unsurprising conclusion:

“The best answer Mr Gove could have given Lord Cavendish is, irrespective of the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, with or without a deal with the EU, the UK will rip up the Protocol.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... rt-brexit/

Evidently unilaterally shredding legally-binding agreements is perfectly acceptable to Brexiteers if it suits their worldview. Makes one wonder what leg this Brexiteer thinks the UK will be able to stand on when China does a similar number on the Joint Sino-British Declaration on Hong Kong?

Ideologues’ inability to see past the end of their own. nose is nothing if not amusing.

olle wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The UK would need a deal with the USA first. But with the way the USA is now, I don't see any deal getting past Congress until at least 2023 (I expect that Congress will be about the same as it is now for 2021-2).

No FTA USA
No FTA EU
No FTA China

I heard that WTO is great!

What WTO?

WTO effectively doesn't exist any more, with no recourse in case of conflict because the WTO courts are paralyzed.

The one implacable event which will turn the EU, much of the US, and the world against the UK ( but not the terrorist 'kill Democrats tweeter') is to sabotage the Good Friday Agreement. If that happens the UK can sign an agreement with Angola and Zaire but not much in-between.

Klaus wrote:

olle wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The UK would need a deal with the USA first. But with the way the USA is now, I don't see any deal getting past Congress until at least 2023 (I expect that Congress will be about the same as it is now for 2021-2).

No FTA USA
No FTA EU
No FTA China

I heard that WTO is great!

What WTO?

WTO effectively doesn't exist any more, with no recourse in case of conflict because the WTO courts are paralyzed.

Details!

sabenapilot wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The UK would need a deal with the USA first. But with the way the USA is now, I don't see any deal getting past Congress until at least 2023 (I expect that Congress will be about the same as it is now for 2021-2).

Indeed, the whole strategy of the UK seems to have been to first just sign the Political Declaration with the EU, allowing for a quick BRINO and remain in the SM/CU for the time being, without much intend to honour the PD:
then to QUICKY negotiate and firm up a 'fantasic' FTA with the USA, probably involving getting closer on US standards in many domains;
then turn back to the EU and explain it is now impossible to live up to the PD in full because of other very important FTAs it has meanwhile signed up as a sovereign nation, but stress the importance of the EU-UK trade and get a FTA without the level playing field nor regulartory alligment conditions of the PD.

Sadly, the benefits of even the most generous FTA with the US proved to be underwhelming, so the US dragged its feet from the start, then came COVID and now the public uproar on the American streets make that the US government simply has no time left for the UK so a FTA by year end is off the table while the PD still stands with the self-set deadline of June nearing and the risk is that at the end there won't be a FTA with the EU, nor will there be one with the US (and certainly not the fantasic one which was said to replace the SM)

What looked like a fantastic strategy suddenly looks utter shambles: how could it possibly go so wrong after BoJo's landslide election victory? "Events dear boy, events".

In the USA, both chambers of Congress must approve a trade agreement. But with the House now not the party of the POTUS, that was unlikely to happen even without COVID-19 or the riots. Nancy Pelosi can still make Northern Ireland the price to pay (that is, mandate that a binding vote on reunification be allowed).

aemoreira1981 wrote:

In the USA, both chambers of Congress must approve a trade agreement. With the House now not the party of the POTUS, that was unlikely to happen even without COVID-19 or the riots. Nancy Pelosi can still make Northern Ireland the price to pay (that is, mandate that a binding vote on reunification be allowed).

more details...

Brexiteers don't do in details, they do in unicorns grazing on sunlit uplands only.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

.

Nancy Pelosi can still make Northern Ireland the price to pay (that is, mandate that a binding vote on reunification be allowed).

It’s amazing how people talk about a border poll in that way, when the power is already in Northern Irish hands to force a border poll. If the question is important to them exercise there right and petition Parliament. There is over 1.8millon in NI and 1.3m registered voters it only takes 100000 to force a debate in Parliament I imagine if a petition raised 6/700000 it would force the governments hand. But over the years I have only ever seen a few ragtag petitions that amount to 4/5000 signatures at most.

If they really want to hold a border poll to become one then they need to get off there collective arse’s and get serious.

A101 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

.

Nancy Pelosi can still make Northern Ireland the price to pay (that is, mandate that a binding vote on reunification be allowed).

It’s amazing how people talk about a border poll in that way, when the power is already in Northern Irish hands to force a border poll. If the question is important to them exercise there right and petition Parliament. There is over 1.8millon in NI and 1.3m registered voters it only takes 100000 to force a debate in Parliament I imagine if a petition raised 6/700000 it would force the governments hand. But over the years I have only ever seen a few ragtag petitions that amount to 4/5000 signatures at most.

If they really want to hold a border poll to become one then they need to get off there collective arse’s and get serious.

There is always a price for a deal.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

A101 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

.

Nancy Pelosi can still make Northern Ireland the price to pay (that is, mandate that a binding vote on reunification be allowed).

It’s amazing how people talk about a border poll in that way, when the power is already in Northern Irish hands to force a border poll. If the question is important to them exercise there right and petition Parliament. There is over 1.8millon in NI and 1.3m registered voters it only takes 100000 to force a debate in Parliament I imagine if a petition raised 6/700000 it would force the governments hand. But over the years I have only ever seen a few ragtag petitions that amount to 4/5000 signatures at most.

If they really want to hold a border poll to become one then they need to get off there collective arse’s and get serious.

There is always a price for a deal.

Correct.

A border poll is just another binary solution to a complex problem: whatever the result of such a poll, a large minority will be very disappointed and bitterly fighting the outcome: 50%+1 votes are no way to settle complex consititutional matters

Besides, there's no need for it either: the GFA pretty much offers a 'have your cake and eat it' for all: the UK simply has to respect all of its commitments in full and make sure whatever it wants Brexit to turn into, to remain compatible with it.

There's no way any US Congress with a Democratic majority will ratify any FTA between the US and the UK if the GFA is undermined by the UK, regardless what BoJo and Trump sign up to: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 72071.html

sabenapilot wrote:

A border poll is just another binary solution to a complex problem: whatever the result of such a poll, a large minority will be very disappointed and bitterly fighting the outcome: 50%+1 votes are no way to settle complex consititutional matters

Besides, there's no need for it either: the GFA pretty much offers a 'have your cake and eat it' for all: the UK simply has to respect all of its commitments in full and make sure whatever it wants Brexit to turn into, to remain compatible with it.

There's no way any US Congress with a Democratic majority will ratify any FTA between the US and the UK if the GFA is undermined by the UK, regardless what BoJo and Trump sign up to: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 72071.html

Hence why I don't see a deal before 2023 at the earliest. In the USA, both chambers must ratify a trade deal for it to be binding on future administrations. Currently, Congress is split (lower house Dem, upper house Republican, and in 2021, it figures to be 50-50 broken by the VP).

sabenapilot wrote:

A border poll is just another binary solution to a complex problem: whatever the result of such a poll, a large minority will be very disappointed and bitterly fighting the outcome: 50%+1 votes are no way to settle complex consititutional matters

Besides, there's no need for it either: the GFA pretty much offers a 'have your cake and eat it' for all: the UK simply has to respect all of its commitments in full and make sure whatever it wants Brexit to turn into, to remain compatible with it.

There's no way any US Congress with a Democratic majority will ratify any FTA between the US and the UK if the GFA is undermined by the UK, regardless what BoJo and Trump sign up to: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 72071.html

We haven’t and will not undermined the GFA irrespective if we remain in the EU or not or if the UK/NI wants to abolish the WA in the future as the UK and Ireland have agreed to a CTA, remember the GFA dosn’t say the UK has to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU or anything about custom checks for goods at the border. The US can’t play that card either, but I imagine Pelli will twist to suit it’s own agenda just like the EU did in the beginning of the WA negotiations and May fell for it.

So long as the UK upholds the GFA, it will have the goodwill of the EU. EU does see Brexit as a lose/lose situation, but not a act of malice.

A101 wrote:

We haven’t and will not undermined the GFA irrespective if we remain in the EU or not or if the UK/NI wants to abolish the WA in the future as the UK and Ireland have agreed to a CTA, remember the GFA dosn’t say the UK has to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU or anything about custom checks for goods at the border. The US can’t play that card either, but I imagine Pelli will twist to suit it’s own agenda just like the EU did in the beginning of the WA negotiations and May fell for it.

It is, indeed, accurate to say that the GFA doesn’t say the UK has to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU, or anything about customs checks for goods at the border.

It is equally accurate to say that EU rules and WTO rules would de facto customs / border checks. Even if it’s only on the Irish side and “an Irish imposition”.

Decision makers around the world aren’t numpties. They understand the causality here: no Brexit / Brexit + close regulatory alignment = no border requirement. Brexit + divergence = borders. You can try to blame the EU and Ireland, but it’s not lost on anyone that the EU and Ireland are not acting unilaterally, nor did they ever want to impose a border. Rather, it is a response to the UK’s democratic decision to wreck the status quo. Whatever follows is fallout from that decision. This is lost on, quite literally, no one.

It’s true that the UK can say that borders do not actually violate the GFA. But that is very much open to interpretation. Ireland will disagree. Pelosi will pounce.

Granted, it will have less to do with Ireland, and more to do with the Democrats mistrust towards nationalist populism, embodied by Trump, and through him, “Britain Trump”. The narrative around Brexit, especially on the Democrat side, is that Brexit and the Trump movement are inextricably linked, thanks, no doubt, to Bannon and Farage. The GFA just adds to Pelosi’s arsenal, given the role the US played in getting that deal done.

If Trump does not get re-elected, it might be even worse. Some of the reluctant / moderate Republicans in Congress will probably try to rinse their hands of Trump’s effort to remake the Republican Party. And their perception of Brexit as a Trump-ian movement (the merits of their view, or lack thereof, notwithstanding) probably won’t help the UK.

There’s a lot of variables at play here.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

So long as the UK upholds the GFA, it will have the goodwill of the EU. EU does see Brexit as a lose/lose situation, but not a act of malice.

One just had to look at the rethroic that EU members used after the result of the referenda was known most notably from François Hollande

It seems that Nissan's Sunderland plant is still under threat despite the restructuring of Nissan brands (which favored the Sunderland plant). Its global chief operating head mentioned to the BBC that the plant is "unsustainable" without a deal between the UK and EU. Moreover, such a deal needs to be tariff free as the bulk of Nissan Sunderland's output is going to the EU.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52900528

LJ wrote:

It seems that Nissan's Sunderland plant is still under threat despite the restructuring of Nissan brands (which favored the Sunderland plant). Its global chief operating head mentioned to the BBC that the plant is "unsustainable" without a deal between the UK and EU. Moreover, such a deal needs to be tariff free as the bulk of Nissan Sunderland's output is going to the EU.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52900528

The chance of French government allows to move production to UK from France is?

Also it demands a FTA EU UK probably meaning equal rights for UK as is today. No fees and minimum paperwork.

Then we have not mentioned that Japan government might push to use the FTA Japan EU meaning sending Cars directly from Japan to EU in the wake of Corona.

My guess is that Sunderland survives until 2022.

olle wrote:

My guess is that Sunderland survives until 2022.

My guess is Nissan gets a big fat cheque to remain in Sunderland. Can gets kicked down the road for a few years until:

a) An actual working FTA
b) Production gets shared between Renault factories in Europe and Japan (who does have a FTA in force).

sabenapilot wrote:

A border poll is just another binary solution to a complex problem: whatever the result of such a poll, a large minority will be very disappointed and bitterly fighting the outcome: 50%+1 votes are no way to settle complex consititutional matters

Besides, there's no need for it either: the GFA pretty much offers a 'have your cake and eat it' for all: the UK simply has to respect all of its commitments in full and make sure whatever it wants Brexit to turn into, to remain compatible with it.l

N.I constitution/GFA requires a minimum 3/4 majority (on a high (70?)% minimum turnout) to actually change it's national status, not 50%+1.

JJJ wrote:

olle wrote:

My guess is that Sunderland survives until 2022.

My guess is Nissan gets a big fat cheque to remain in Sunderland. Can gets kicked down the road for a few years until:

a) An actual working FTA
b) Production gets shared between Renault factories in Europe and Japan (who does have a FTA in force).

Nissan just canned it's Barcelona plant, with thousands of Spaniards being made redundant. That production is being moved to Sunderland. The Sunderland plant is safe for the forseable, despite brexit.

I'd much rather have the EU's negotiators on my side than the clowns the brexitard minority have foisted upon us.

ChrisKen wrote:

JJJ wrote:

olle wrote:

My guess is that Sunderland survives until 2022.

My guess is Nissan gets a big fat cheque to remain in Sunderland. Can gets kicked down the road for a few years until:

a) An actual working FTA
b) Production gets shared between Renault factories in Europe and Japan (who does have a FTA in force).

Nissan just canned it's Barcelona plant, with thousands of Spaniards being made redundant. That production is being moved to Sunderland. The Sunderland plant is safe for the forseable, despite brexit.

Nope. The Barcelona plant made commercial vehicles which will relocated either to Renault's Maubège plant (NV200 and electric vans) or relocated to South Africa for the Navara pickups.

The last car made in Barcelona was the Pulsar, which was discontinued due to poor sales.

ChrisKen wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

A border poll is just another binary solution to a complex problem: whatever the result of such a poll, a large minority will be very disappointed and bitterly fighting the outcome: 50%+1 votes are no way to settle complex consititutional matters

Besides, there's no need for it either: the GFA pretty much offers a 'have your cake and eat it' for all: the UK simply has to respect all of its commitments in full and make sure whatever it wants Brexit to turn into, to remain compatible with it.l

N.I constitution/GFA requires a minimum 3/4 majority (on a high (70?)% minimum turnout) to actually change it's national status, not 50%+1.

Interesting, unless I’ve missed it I can’t see where it stipulates what the minimum turnout is

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/47/contents

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... nification

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit ... r_poll.pdf

vi. The 50%+1 criterion

The 1998 Act and the Agreement appear unequivocal that all turns on a “majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll”.

The reference in the Act to “the people of Northern Ireland” may introduce an element of ambiguity. But the only plausible interpretation is that the provision refers to a majority of those who actually vote – rather than a majority of the electorate, or of the whole population (government statements have been consistent with that interpretation. If otherwise, the Act would have defined “people of Northern Ireland”, as it does not).

And there appears nothing to justify any minimum turnout threshold.

There has so far been little dissent on either side of the debate in Northern Ireland from the 50%+1 consent formulation. Some polling work just after the Agreement suggested widespread, though not universal, popular acceptance among Unionists – although at that point the prospect was a distant one.

The negotiations are getting harder. The UK has come up with a proposal regarding illegal immigrants to ensure that the UK can send back illegal immigrants to the first point of entry in the EU. However, when out of the EU, the EU will not accept illegal immigrants from the UK. However, the EU doesn't want to negotiate this issue as they have other interests.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eu-wont-agree-deal-back-135418067.html

LJ wrote:

The negotiations are getting harder. The UK has come up with a proposal regarding illegal immigrants to ensure that the UK can send back illegal immigrants to the first point of entry in the EU. However, when out of the EU, the EU will not accept illegal immigrants from the UK. However, the EU doesn't want to negotiate this issue as they have other interests.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eu-wont-agree-deal-back-135418067.html

By leaving the EU the UK also leaves de Dublin convention.

This means (other memberstates of) the EU are under no obligation whatsoever any longer to take immigrants back from the UK which are found to have passed through one of them first.

As Mr Barnier has said many times: leaving the EU will have consequences, and one could ironically very well be the total loss of control over the number of people that present themselves at the UK border and on the shores of Britain!

Indeed, if the EU wants it could start to play the same vicious game as the Turks a couple of years ago: let all transmigrants pass through unhindered on their way to the promissed new life in the west and see how a public uproar will make the government of the country of their destination very very nervous, especially since that government has promissed for the 10th year in a row to cut back the migration numbers.

Ironically, the notorious picture on billboards showing a stream of Syrian refugees heading to Europe might be back on the front pages in the UK sooner than some think, but this time the buffer states of the EU won't be there to hide behind, and the reason will be Brexit….. Well done!

sabenapilot wrote:

LJ wrote:

The negotiations are getting harder. The UK has come up with a proposal regarding illegal immigrants to ensure that the UK can send back illegal immigrants to the first point of entry in the EU. However, when out of the EU, the EU will not accept illegal immigrants from the UK. However, the EU doesn't want to negotiate this issue as they have other interests.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eu-wont-agree-deal-back-135418067.html

By leaving the EU the UK also leaves de Dublin convention.

This means (other memberstates of) the EU are under no obligation whatsoever any longer to take immigrants back from the UK which are found to have passed through one of them first.

As Mr Barnier has said many times: leaving the EU will have consequences, and one could ironically very well be the total loss of control over the number of people that present themselves at the UK border and on the shores of Britain!

Indeed, if the EU wants it could start to play the same vicious game as the Turks a couple of years ago: let all transmigrants pass through unhindered on their way to the promissed new life in the west and see how a public uproar will make the government of the country of their destination very very nervous, especially since that government has promissed for the 10th year in a row to cut back the migration numbers.

Ironically, the notorious picture on billboards showing a stream of Syrian refugees heading to Europe might be back on the front pages in the UK sooner than some think, but this time the buffer states of the EU won't be there to hide behind, and the reason will be Brexit….. Well done!

Project fear!!!!

In practical terms won't this be 'dumped' on the airlines. If they bring someone to a UK airport they are responsible for the cost of returning them to where-ever. Second, assuming dozens (hundreds) of FTAs, some of them will have to do with immigration. Also how will this relate to ROI, EU, and NI and then the UK? All parties have an interest in rationalizing and controlling cross country travel.

Just something I never understood....

Let say that you have one country A with refugees wanting to go to an other country B and the border is blocked, agreements is in place to send refugees back from B to A.

We now have refugee camps in country A.

Suddenly country B abandons the agreements keeping this up.

What do you think country A further or later will do?

I believe that country A in order to not create a bad relationship with B will tell the refugees to go to country B but they will probably not force the situation.. "looking between the fingers".

I see that this is happening now. Dublin will be dead from next year and Mr Farage can complain as much as he wants...

So the Britts and Europeans seem to be in agreement at last! Both see no movement in the negotiations. So let's have a hard Brexit and trade on WTO terms. See you back at the table, UK, or at least what is left of it in. 5 years time.

The EU's chief negotiator says little progress has been made on reaching a post-Brexit agreement, as 'the UK continues to backtrack' on commitments agreed to in a political declaration that sets out the framework for the future relationship between the bloc and Britain

Link

I am totally convinced that a hard Brexit is the only way forward, I have seen the light. With these Brexitremist there is no middle ground, no way to reason with, so let's leave it at that then and call it a day.
The only reason to continue this charade is to not to give these Brexitremist any excuse to blame the EU for their doings.

Good luck my British friends, I am sorry for all good willing Britts who will be caught up in this.

olle wrote:

Just something I never understood....

Let say that you have one country A with refugees wanting to go to an other country B and the border is blocked, agreements is in place to send refugees back from B to A.

We now have refugee camps in country A.

Suddenly country B abandons the agreements keeping this up.

What do you think country A further or later will do?

I believe that country A in order to not create a bad relationship with B will tell the refugees to go to country B but they will probably not force the situation.. "looking between the fingers".

I see that this is happening now. Dublin will be dead from next year and Mr Farage can complain as much as he wants...

Farage is out, he plays no more part in anything. He made himself redundant.

Dutchy wrote:

So the Britts and Europeans seem to be in agreement at last! Both see no movement in the negotiations. So let's have a hard Brexit and trade on WTO terms. See you back at the table, UK, or at least what is left of it in. 5 years time.

The EU's chief negotiator says little progress has been made on reaching a post-Brexit agreement, as 'the UK continues to backtrack' on commitments agreed to in a political declaration that sets out the framework for the future relationship between the bloc and Britain

Link

I am totally convinced that a hard Brexit is the only way forward, I have seen the light. With these Brexitremist there is no middle ground, no way to reason with, so let's leave it at that then and call it a day.
The only reason to continue this charade is to not to give these Brexitremist any excuse to blame the EU for their doings.

Good luck my British friends, I am sorry for all good willing Britts who will be caught up in this.

Cue cognitive dissonance as Brexiteers applaud reneging on previous commitments that they made, while simultaneously accusing the EU of negotiating in bad faith. Like the Brexiteer proposal to shred the Irish protocol.

While the rest of the world wonder: what good is any type of agreement if Brexiteers won’t respect it?

I don't understand what is so bad about having a Canadian-style deal.

Dieuwer wrote:

I don't understand what is so bad about having a Canadian-style deal.

They weren't aking for a Canadian-style agreement. They were asking for a Canada+++++++++++++++ style of agreement. If you read what they wanted, it goes waaaaay beyond CETA (which is already difficult to get approval from some EU countries). They only ones believing CETA and what the UK asked for were the Brits themselves.

The EU could obviously make it easier for the Brits: create a multiple choice list with deals from which they can pick one. The final option (i.e. "none of the above") would be a No-Deal Hard Brexit.

Dieuwer wrote:

The EU could obviously make it easier for the Brits: create a multiple choice list with deals from which they can pick one. The final option (i.e. "none of the above") would be a No-Deal Hard Brexit.

my mistake, no reference so it got deleted.



source

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

The EU could obviously make it easier for the Brits: create a multiple choice list with deals from which they can pick one. The final option (i.e. "none of the above") would be a No-Deal Hard Brexit.

my mistake, no reference so it got deleted.



source

So how long does the EU wants to negotiate? Another couple of months? Years? Until the next decade?

Dieuwer wrote:

So how long does the EU wants to negotiate? Another couple of months? Years? Until the next decade?

Doesn't really matter. The Brexiteers put themselves on an unachievable timeline and in the lose-lose Brexit world, the Britts got more to lose.

The EU is ready for a hard Brexit, GB isn't.

So the real question is, how long does the UK want to pretend to negotiate?

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

my mistake, no reference so it got deleted.



source

So how long does the EU wants to negotiate? Another couple of months? Years? Until the next decade?

Doesn't really matter. The Brexiteers put themselves on an unachievable timeline and in the lose-lose Brexit world, the Britts got more to lose.

The EU is ready for a hard Brexit, GB isn't.

So the real question is, how long does the UK want to pretend to negotiate?

I suppose I admire Barnier for his endless patience. Mine is pretty much gone by now.

Dieuwer wrote:

I suppose I admire Barnier for his endless patience. Mine is pretty much gone by now.

Don't identify yourself with the end result, but with the process, you are just fine: with means not ends. Civil servant's mantra and Barnier is very much a civil servant.

Dutchy wrote:

I am totally convinced that a hard Brexit is the only way forward, I have seen the light. With these Brexitremist there is no middle ground, no way to reason with, so let's leave it at that then and call it a day.
The only reason to continue this charade is to not to give these Brexitremist any excuse to blame the EU for their doings.

Good luck my British friends, I am sorry for all good willing Britts who will be caught up in this.

Only now? It was obvious after the referendum and certain after the last election.

seahawk wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I am totally convinced that a hard Brexit is the only way forward, I have seen the light. With these Brexitremist there is no middle ground, no way to reason with, so let's leave it at that then and call it a day.
The only reason to continue this charade is to not to give these Brexitremist any excuse to blame the EU for their doings.

Good luck my British friends, I am sorry for all good willing Britts who will be caught up in this.

Only now? It was obvious after the referendum and certain after the last election.

Give me a break, I am a positive minded person and want the best for Brittain and Britts, so it took me some time to allow myself to see that the Britts in charge actually wants the worst outcome, whatever is thrown at them. Same with a Heroine addict, no matter how. much you love that person, if he/she doesn't want to be helped, you can't and in the end you have to accept it, no matter how hard it is.

So now I am in morning for losing a dear but excentric friend. But still, somewhere I hope she will return................

Dutchy wrote:

So the Britts and Europeans seem to be in agreement at last! Both see no movement in the negotiations. So let's have a hard Brexit and trade on WTO terms. See you back at the table, UK, or at least what is left of it in. 5 years time.

The EU's chief negotiator says little progress has been made on reaching a post-Brexit agreement, as 'the UK continues to backtrack' on commitments agreed to in a political declaration that sets out the framework for the future relationship between the bloc and Britain

Link

I am totally convinced that a hard Brexit is the only way forward, I have seen the light. With these Brexitremist there is no middle ground, no way to reason with, so let's leave it at that then and call it a day.
The only reason to continue this charade is to not to give these Brexitremist any excuse to blame the EU for their doings.

Good luck my British friends, I am sorry for all good willing Britts who will be caught up in this.

Why would EU (or UK for that matters) leave the negotiation table? I can't see a single benefit of doing so.
That's international diplomacy not a little town council meeting where emotions have some place.

I mean, even if there is no deal agreed october 31st and no extention the negotiation won't stop. It's very much a Brexiter thing to think Brexit is just an event, it's a process, and a long one.

Really have to wonder about all the bleating on backsliding the EU trying to spin something that’s not there as usaual.

Using a non binding declaration that doesn't actully say we have to commit to incorporating EU law into UK law. The political declaration is a matter of interpretation, but I notice when Barnier uses the political declaration he leaves out para 4: It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom: Blindly insisting incorporating EU law into UK law is not respecting UK sovereignty. If we were to do that then there was no point to leaving the EU.

4. The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union's decision making and be consistent with the Union's principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms. It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So the Britts and Europeans seem to be in agreement at last! Both see no movement in the negotiations. So let's have a hard Brexit and trade on WTO terms. See you back at the table, UK, or at least what is left of it in. 5 years time.

The EU's chief negotiator says little progress has been made on reaching a post-Brexit agreement, as 'the UK continues to backtrack' on commitments agreed to in a political declaration that sets out the framework for the future relationship between the bloc and Britain

Link

I am totally convinced that a hard Brexit is the only way forward, I have seen the light. With these Brexitremist there is no middle ground, no way to reason with, so let's leave it at that then and call it a day.
The only reason to continue this charade is to not to give these Brexitremist any excuse to blame the EU for their doings.

Good luck my British friends, I am sorry for all good willing Britts who will be caught up in this.

Why would EU (or UK for that matters) leave the negotiation table? I can't see a single benefit of doing so.
That's international diplomacy not a little town council meeting where emotions have some place.

I mean, even if there is no deal agreed october 31st and no extention the negotiation won't stop. It's very much a Brexiter thing to think Brexit is just an event, it's a process, and a long one.

100% agree if these talks fail before the transition period ends, talks will continue in the future it’s in everyone’s interest not just the UK

Interestinly enough A101, Mr Barnier showed a possible landing zone during today's press conference on this very issue, when he said that the aim is only to ensure fair competition within the SM when it came to state aid, not to interfere in British domestic law.
The demand until now has been that EU’s rules on state aid should just be incorporated in British law, but today he noticed that robust and binding commitments to this same purpose are a possible alternative too.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -aid-rules

I think it's fair to say one can not expect the EU to allow access to its single market for foreign manufacturers which could theoretically get unlimited state aid at home. I think that is just common sense, so either the UK drops its demand for market access, or it agrees to a mechanism to make sure there will be no market distortion through state aid in future: either by legal domestic initiatives as the EU has proposed, or by a binding commitment in the FTA itself (a sort of a guillotine clause, Swiss style): face saved at home for the Britts, end result exactly the same for the Europeans: no divergence... or no competition.

A101 wrote:

Really have to wonder about all the bleating on backsliding the EU trying to spin something that’s not there as usaual.

Using a non binding declaration that doesn't actully say we have to commit to incorporating EU law into UK law. The political declaration is a matter of interpretation, but I notice when Barnier uses the political declaration he leaves out para 4: It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom: Blindly insisting incorporating EU law into UK law is not respecting UK sovereignty. If we were to do that then there was no point to leaving the EU.

4. The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union's decision making and be consistent with the Union's principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms. It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom.

I must have missed where MB insist "EU law into UK law", could you please quote it from his speach ?

I feel he simply repeat the PD is a base framework agreed between EU and Johnson government to highlight it's a bit of a problem if UK doesn't recognise it anymore but still want a fast negotiation... Seriously, from UK it's far from being good faith to negate it now.

BTW, sweet irony to read you say the PD is non-binding so doesn't really matter, I kind of remember a non binding stuff that became the white card for anything Brexiter wanted... .... Yeah I know : it's different because Cameron sent a letter

sabenapilot wrote:

Interestinly enough A101, Mr Barnier showed a possible landing zone during today's press conference on this very issue, when he said that the aim is only to ensure fair competition within the SM when it came to state aid, not to interfere in British domestic law.
The demand until now has been that EU’s rules on state aid should just be incorporated in British law, but today he noticed that robust and binding commitments to this same purpose are a possible alternative too.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -aid-rules

I think it's fair to say one can not expect the EU to allow access to its single market for foreign manufacturers which could theoretically get unlimited state aid at home. I think that is just common sense, so either the UK drops its demand for market access, or it agrees to a mechanism to make sure there will be no market distortion through state aid in future: either by legal domestic initiatives as the EU has proposed, or by a binding commitment in the FTA itself (a sort of a guillotine clause, Swiss style): face saved at home for the Britts, end result exactly the same for the Europeans: no divergence... or no competition.

Yes I read that earlier, as with most media I take with a grain of salt. Just have to wait for more details if they are forthcoming or not

A101 wrote:

100% agree if these talks fail before the transition period ends, talks will continue in the future it’s in everyone’s interest not just the UK

that's fine, continue to talk, it will not change the fundamental issue's. So unless the UK comes back to the table with something remotely acceptable to the EU, these talks will be a ritual dance. Luckily I am not Barnier or am in his team, I like to accomplish something positive.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

100% agree if these talks fail before the transition period ends, talks will continue in the future it’s in everyone’s interest not just the UK

that's fine, continue to talk, it will not change the fundamental issue's. So unless the UK comes back to the table with something remotely acceptable to the EU, these talks will be a ritual dance. Luckily I am not Barnier or am in his team, I like to accomplish something positive.

They are doing positive ! It's just that it takes two to tango.
Which side thinks brinkmanship could help its cause ? Which side knows it have the higher hand ?
For weeks the "trade twitter" and other negotiation commentators are saying there will be no progress before september, (and most can see landing zone then, just not sure it will be reached though....) and it's simply happening. Barnier and its team was aware of that, it's their job not to be disappointed.

I know I'm bad at prediction, I said 2 months ago we'll see a U-turn from UK gov in early may...
But I now understand why it's obvious we're not close to see real move. After all nothing stops agreeing a deal with a "phase-in" period, so the end of June deadline is moot. If a longer time to adapt to new mecanism is needed it's largely not the more difficult thing as long it's not labelled "extension".

End June there is a summit, nothing huge will come out of it (just can't wait to see BJ doing this high level politic/diplomatic exercise), maybe an engagment to continue/accelerate talks during the summer.?